I received my Brown for Senate Weekly Update e-mail this morning, which is a “weekly campaign wrap-up” intended to “keep you up-to-date with the happenings on the campaign trail”. Today’s e-mail describes campaign-related events from last week.

Curiously absent from the list of items the Brown campaign chose to highlight was the senator’s guest opinion published last week in Bay Windows, a weekly newspaper serving New England’s lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) communities.

In his guest opinion Sen. Brown referred to LGBT-related legislation as “pet projects” and said that “I don’t come before you with a checklist of items promising that I will be an advocate for you on each and every one of them.”

Judging by readers’ comments on the Bay Windows website, Sen. Brown’s message was not favorably received except by the astroturfer Maria Sanchez / Steven Miller / Jen Smith likely posting from the same e-mail address.

Today’s Weekly Update e-mail informed me that “Scott penned a guest op-ed in the Lowell Sun entitled ‘I Support Secure Communities’”, and provided a link. It also highlighted and linked to newspaper articles about the senator published last week in the Worcester Telegram & Gazette and the Fall River Herald News. But there was no mention of his Bay Windows guest opinion.

The Lowell Sun op-ed and the articles that are highlighted today’s Weekly Update e-mail are also all prominently featured on the Articles page of Brown’s campaign website. But not the Bay Windows guest opinion.

The Bay Windows guest opinion represented a noteworthy departure for Brown, who has a reputation for avoiding the LGBT press and discussion of LGBT-related legislation. Thus the campaign’s choice to remain silent in today’s Weekly Update e-mail about this historic guest opinion leaves voters questioning whether the guest opinion was anything more than a poor attempt by Sen. Brown to pander to LGBT and allied constituents.

Brown’s key democratic challenger, Elizabeth Warren, supports civil rights for LGBT people and vows to “be a leader for equal rights for all in the U.S. Senate” if elected this November.

I spent most of 2011 trying to get Scott Brown to answer this one question about the impacts of DOMA (Defense-of-Marriage Act) upon his constituents:

Senator Brown, what’s more important to you: (A) preventing DOMA-related discrimination against your own constituents who live in Massachusetts, and who travel in other states, and who use the same federal programs that every other American uses; or (B) legalizing discrimination by other states and the federal government against your own constituents?

He always chose option B. His staff confirmed that he wants to ensure that other states and the federal government can continue discriminating against all same-gender couples in 9 states today (CT, DC, IA, MA, MD, NH, NY, VT, WA) and in all future same-gender marriage states.

The only time that Scott Brown votes for an LGBT-positive measure is when his own vote makes no difference at all, because then he tells constituents that he “delivered” and tells his Republican animal trainers the excuse that “it would have happened anyway.” But whenever his position does matter, he works against LGBT people everywhere.

Scott Brown refuses to sponsor or vote for bills that protect his constituents from DOMA-related discrimination. He admits that he considers equality for LGBT people as a trivial “pet project” of no political value. He claims that ending discrimination conflicts with creating jobs, and that’s why he can’t possibly do both at the same time.

Any elected official who can’t oppose discrimination and create jobs at the same time is either un-skilled, or else dishonest (or perhaps both).

It’s public knowledge that Scott Brown is owned and funded by Wall Street and big oil; what’s less well known is that NOM (National Organization for Marriage) works on his campaigns, because they share the same goal: continue state and federal discrimination against LGBT people everywhere via DOMA.